(L.23) LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY - Environmental Impact cases
Latest council report on Environmental Impact cases (Diane Barker and the Crystal Palace campaign) - LBB Development Control Committee 22.7.03
Extract from the public part of the
council agenda of:
Development Control Committee meeting
Tues. 22nd July 2003.
Agenda Item 10
Report No. BS03096
Title: Crystal Palace House of Lords
Decision Maker: Development Control
Committee Decision type: 22 Jul 2003
Decision Type: Urgent Executive Key
Budget/Policy Framework: Within policy and budget
Chief Officer: Beryl Cook
Contact Officer: Beryl Cook Chief Legal Officer
Tel: 020 8313 4447 Email: email@example.com
Ward: Crystal Palace
1.1 As Members will be aware the latest stage in the Diane Barker proceedings to establish whether an environmental impact assessment is required at reserved matters stage was due to be heard at the House of Lords on 16th and 17th June 2003. In the event at a very late stage the Government, through the Treasury Solicitor, applied to become a party to the proceedings, as it is national law that is under challenge as well as the Council's decision. As part of their application to be joined in as a party the House of Lords attention was drawn to the proceedings brought against the Government by the Crystal Palace Campaign on a very similar point which are due to be heard in the European Court. As result of this the House of Lords have also referred the Diane Barker proceedings to the European Court of Justice for consideration. It is possible that the two sets of proceedings may be heard together. It is likely to be a year or more before any court hearing takes place.
1.2 It is recommended that the Council should continue to be represented in the European Court for the following reasons:-
(i) If the Council were to withdraw from the proceedings now, costs in the High Court and the Court of Appeal which were awarded to the Council could be at risk.
(ii) The Council does have an interest in the outcome of both sets of proceedings in the European Court were the Council required to revoke the planning permission.
(iii) It is also proposed in the draft UDP that the site should be taken out of the MOL. There may also be implications that could arise in respect of this although, in practice, the UDP Inquiry may already have been held and the Inspector's report considered by the Council by the time the matter is heard in the European Court (normally about a year after the referral).
(iv) Whilst not directly relevant in deciding whether or not the Council should continue to defend these proceedings, it is important to note that the case will also decide an important point of law.
The options open to the Council are
1. Provide written submissions and appear at an oral hearing.
2. Provide written submissions but make no appearance at the oral hearing and leave this to the Government.
3. Make no representations or appearance at the hearing and leave the matter to the Government to defend.
It is understood that the bulk of the work is carried on at the written submissions stage and that speeches at the oral hearing are limited.
2. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
2.1 The cost of a two-day hearing in the House of Lords was £20,000
3.1 That for the reasons given above the Council provide written submissions and is represented at the hearing in the European Court.
Top of Page; Go to Legal Index
14/9/03 Last updated 14/9/03